of them are separate, insofar as administration on the Panama Canal Zone is concerned.

Now, as I previously stated, we could secure no redress in regard to this alien situation for at least 23 years, to my knowledge, and I do know that prior to my efforts other representatives of the labor organizations had endeavored to secure relief, but about a year ago there was a bill introduced and referred to the two Military Affairs Committees. This bill provided or granted permission to the Secretary of War to construct certain hangars for the Army on the Canal Zone and housing for the personnel who were to man the planes and service them. I put in a request for an appearance before these committees of both the House and Senate, but following my usual procedure, I went down to the commanding general in charge of the work, Gen. Owen Seaman, and told him what I intended to do; that I intended to amend his legislation for the purpose of taking care of the alien situation that we objected to, insofar as that particular building job was concerned.

He asked me exactly what I wanted, and I told him that we wanted to eliminate the West Indian colored alien from service, particularly on the building trades work, because under Executive order those aliens cannot be paid more than 40 cents an hour if they are on the hourly roll, or $80 a month if they are on the monthly roll, and that rate is for those aliens in higher positions, and some who are in supervisory positions. The average rate of pay for these colored aliens is about 25 cents per hour and they are doing all kinds of building trades work, clerical work, and every other skilled occupation, as well as the common labor.

When the General understood that, he said it would be very difficult for him to take all his common labor down there. He said, "I would readily agree to eliminate these aliens, insofar as the skilled work is concerned." And, realizing the position he was in, and after he had explained that they had to get this housing for the planes and that the men for the planes would be there and no place to put them, I agreed to leave the common labor out of the proposition, and that is why this amendment is confined to the skilled positions.

Just about that time, the bill authorizing $277,000,000 for the construction of the new set of locks came along, and, following out the agreement I had made with General Seaman, I only asked that the amendment provide for the elimination of aliens from the skilled positions. The bill was first passed with that out, but on a motion of Senator Danaher, it was reconsidered and the amendment is now in that law, and I point out that it was passed subsequent to the ratification of the treaty.

Brother McDonagh, right beside me now sat in with me on practically all the conferences had with the Secretary of War, the Director of the Budget, Smith, the Judge Advocate General of the Army, and other representatives of the War Department. There was $42,000,000 worth of Army building to be done and the contracts have just been let for it this month. We were all in agreement that the alien should be excluded from doing skilled work on that $42,000,000 worth of construction. The only thing that we were considering was the method of procedure. By instruction of Secretary Woodring, the Judge Advocate General made an investigation and went over all the laws to see whether they could legally write into the contracts this

bar without additional legislation, and he came back with about four foolscap pages which said, "No." So then he was instructed by the Secretary, in our presence, to draft suitable legislation, and, as a result, S. 3130 and H. R. 7941 were drafted by the Wer Department and introduced at their request.

The Secretary of War remained after a Cabinet meeting, took it up in detail with the President, and he put his blessings on it. And the understanding we had with all these Government officials and the President, too, I am told by the Secretary of War, was that there would be no amendments. That bill passed the House, was favorably reported by the Senate committee, and was passed by the Senate but upon motion of Chairman Thomas it was reconsidered for the purpose of letting him propose an amendment regarding goods manufactured in the United States, and it still remains on the calendar. However, after that proposal passed the House of Representatives, the news was cabled to Panama by the Associated Press and the Panamanians noticed that they were going to be eliminated. They had already been eliminated from the construction at the new locks, so they immediately cabled their diplomatic representatives here in Washington, and they called upon the President and he immediately reversed himself.

Now, I know that the Secretary of War and the State Department are in sympathy with this legislation, but, of course, I realize they have got to follow orders.

Senator HAYDEN. On that point, let me state that the State Department sent a representative here, Mr. Harold Finley, to appear before us, protesting against the enactment of your proposal. He stated that at the time the bill to authorize the construction of the new locks was approved at the White House the President stated that his attention having been directed by the Panamanians who thought that it violated the treaty, he would approve it but that he would urge Congress to enact subsequent legislation which would protect the treaty rights of the Republic of Panama.

Mr. HUSHING. That is an absolute fact.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WORK CONNECTED WITH MAINTENANCE AND NEW LOCK CONSTRUCTION

Senator HAYDEN. There is a distinction which members of the Committee on Interoceanic Canals made with respect to the construction of the new locks for the Panama Canal and the Army construction costing $40,000,000 of which you are speaking. In each case a certain piece of work is to be done within a limited period of time, and then each job will be finished. Your present proposal affects the continued maintenance of the Panama Canal?

Mr. HUSHING. That is right.

Senator HAYDEN. My reason for approving the other bill was that although technically the Panamanians might have an objection, and certainly had the right to make it as a precedent for opposition to a future step which would affect the general maintenance, nevertheless they really did not have any substantial complaint if the United States, in building the third set of locks, or in expending $40,000,000 on new Army construction, sent a large number of Americans down there and erected barracks to house them just as was done when the

Panama Canal was originally constructed. When it was all over, the skilled labor returned to the United States. The problem of bringing families to the Canal Zone to live in permanent quarters did not exist. And while the Panamanians may have had a technical objection, it did not hurt them to have such improvements made in the Canal Zone. They would, in my judgment, gain more than they would lose on any emergency or any permanent construction that would employ labor for a limited period of time. Consequently there must be a distinction drawn between new construction and the ordinary maintenance of the Panama Canal.

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS TO SECTION 2 OFFERED BY GOV. C. S. RIDLEY, CANAL ZONE

Governor Ridley, in summarizing his objection to the bill, gave these eight reasons that I would like to read to you.

Governor RIDLEY. This proposed limitation should not be adopted for the following reasons:

First, the provision would be in conflict with the commitment of our Government made in connection with the 1936 treaty with the Republic of Panama.

Second, the provision would require discharge from the regular force of persons who have served the United States faithfully.

Third, the provision would effect an important change in the employment policy, and this should not be done without full hearing, so that Congress might be informed.

Fourth, this change would come at a time, as prescribed in the bill, when it would have a disturbing and possibly critical effect on defense construction now proceeding.

Fifth, the effect of the bill is entirely uncertain, and cannot be determined without considerably expense and time.

Sixth, it puts a rigid requirement on the employment of certain classes, and does not, therefore, take account of emergencies which may arise, and for which we could not get Americans in the time required.

Seventh, it would be costly.

Eighth, if the amendment affects anywhere near the number of people its proponents claim it would affect, there is not time enough to do it.

What is your answer to the first objection raised by Governor Ridley?

Mr. HUSHING. It would conflict.

QUESTION AS TO LAW SUPERSEDING TREATY

Senator HAYDEN. It violates the treaty?

Mr. HUSHING. But the law supersedes this treaty.

Senator HAYDEN. Unfortunately, the Constitution of the United States says that treaties are superior to laws. I do not think you could get far in a court with that assumption.

Mr. HUSHING. I argued that question with the State Department. Those two gentlemen that appeared before the committee came over and discussed this question with me and they first argued that a la w did not supersede a treaty. I contended that it did. And I argued that one House of Congress could not bind both Houses; that an action by both Houses, as was taken, for example, on the new set of locks, would supersede a treaty, and they finally agreed that that was

true.

Senator HAYDEN. For practical purposes, you may be right, but if there was some way of taking it to the Supreme Court--I am afraid that the Court would hold——

Mr. HUSHING (interposing). If you will put my amendment on, will take that chance.

AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO SECTION 2 BY STATE DEPARTMENT

I

Senator HAYDEN. Mr, Finley of the State Department appeared on the following day to suggest language by which section 2 of this act might be amended so as to have it conform to what the State Department regards as a firm commitment to Panama, by adding the following:

Senator MCCARRAN. What page are you reading from?
Senator HAYDEN. I am reading from page 31:

Provided, however, as an exception to this prohibition, That nothing in this Act shall operate to prevent the employment of any person entitled by reason of any international commitment of the United States to be eligible for such employment.

The effect of such a proviso, as I understand it, would be to bar any West Indian alien, but it would not bar a citizen of Panama from obtaining employment on the Canal Zone.

Mr. HUSHING. Exactly.

TREATY WITH PANAMA

Senator HAYDEN. The only treaty we have is with Panama, and the reason for the treaty is that the Canal Zone is enclosed on both sides by Panama territory. We want to get along with the Panamanians as good neighbors so long as we operate the Canal. If we had serious trouble with them, it might lead to taking over the entire territory of the Republic of Panama. Therefore the United States has made a special treaty with the Panamanian Government, saying that in employment on the Canal Zone there shall be no discrimination against their citizens. That treaty would be maintained by adopting the proviso as suggested by the State Department, but all the rest of your amendment will apply to all other aliens. What have you to say to that?

AMENDMENT

PROPOSED BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR ΤΟ
SECTION 2

Mr. HUSHING. Of course, I don't want to see our Government going back on any commitment they have made, and for that reason I have prepared an amendment to this section which I intended to suggest later, but as long as you have brought up the subject, I will read it now:

Provided, however, That this section shall not apply to citizens of the Republic of Panama who were employed on the Canal Zone by any branch of the United States Government prior to March 20, 1940, if such persons were in such employment on that date.

Now, in so far as I am informed, there is no expiration date on the treaty and there surely should be some method of abrogating a treaty, and if you have kept your word in regard to the treaty up to the time of the passage of this legislation, it seems to me that no one would have any complaint.

Now then, this situation has existed since 1908. By Executive order, these Panamanians have been supposed to have equal employment rights on the Canal, but they have never been able to get them, and the answer is because these West Indian colored aliens are even cheaper than the Panamanians when it comes to employment.

The reason that they are stressing this question so hard is that everybody apparently is trying to get rid of the West Indian colored aliens, and I only mention that word "colored" to bring home the fact that our Government could not handle White British subjects that way, because they could not work them for that money, but they can do it with these poor colored fellows.

Now, that is the reason I put it in, and there is no objection on the part of the American Federation of Labor to any colored American citizens being employed on the Canal Zone, and if he is employed, and some of them have been, they belong to our organizations and they receive the same compensation and privileges that we do, and they are treated just like any of the white employees. So I want that made plain.

Senator CHAVEZ. With reference to compensation and everything else?

Mr. HUSHING. Yes, sir; they are American citizens and are entitled to it.

Senator CHAVEZ. That is the way I feel about it.

Mr. HUSHING. That is it, exactly, and I only mention the word "colored" because I want to bring it home to the committee that they cannot do this to white British subjects or white French subjects. Senator CHAVEZ. I agree with that.

Mr. HUSHING. Now, there was that Executive order, and I will give you this book, so that you can insert it in the record, if there is no objection.

LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO PEOPLE IN PANAMA CANAL

Senator THOMAS. Let me ask you at this point if we are under any legal obligations to any people in the Panama Canal, save the Americans and the Panamanians?

Mr. HUSHING. No; none, unless you call Executive orders legal obligations. There were Executive orders and I will insert them in the record if you care to have me

Senator THOMAS (interposing). I should like to have them.

(The Executive orders referred to follow Mr. Hushings testimony, see p. 140.)

Mr. HUSHING (continuing). Which provide that those who were employed as of a certain date might remain in service, and these Executive orders-there are 2 or 3 of them-provided that aliens could not be employed after that date, except the Panamanians. But as I just stated, the Panamanian never got the job, because the West Indian was cheaper and also due to the fact that they didn't speak our language and our supervisors could not give them proper instructions.